The Pyrrhonian way of Life
Preface
If this piece piques your interest then let it do so. If it does not seem to suit your taste then let it be. I do not wish to convince any reader. I write down what comes to my mind. Whatever it is Pyrrhonism
was supposed to be in ancient Greece is unclear to me. My writings are entirely dedicated to the impact philosophy and life’s other experiences has had on my attitude towards living, but more
specifically Pyrrhonism is what I feel to be most characteristic of my own thoughts and their tranquillity. Therefore I wish to enquire into what Sextus Empiricus has said, who wrote about
Content
Introduction 31. Modernity and Pyrrhonism 8 1.1 Modernity
1.2 Pyrrhonism
2. Suspending Judgement, tranquillity and its practical application 13 2.1 Suspension of judgement and tranquillity
2.2 The process of suspension
3. The life related aspects of Pyrrhonism 17 3.1 The life of the Pyrrhonist
3.2 The Sam examples
4. Appearance and action in modern daily life 23 4.1 The world of appearances
4.2 The effect of the appearances on the mind 4.3 The standards of action
4.4 Ordinary Pyrrhonism
5. David Hume and the introduction of habit 31 5.1 The common man
5.2 Habit
5.3 Hume and Ordinary Pyrrhonism
6. The appeal and (trap)suppression of Dogmatism: A comparison of attitudes 36 6.1 The essence of Dogmatism
6.2 Pyrrhonism as a solution 7. Conclusion 38
Introduction
The following work is an effort in building a stance towards life with the aid of philosophy. This is my personal endeavour to explain what I feel to be a fruitful stance towards modern daily struggles with the insights I have gained through philosophy. The thoughts that are described in the work are inspired by both the life of normal citizenship in the Netherlands, discussions with friends, of who some were occupied with their own academic field, and a thorough reading of a variety of philosophical works. This philosophy for life came into existence for two reasons. The first is an aversion towards the careless belief in science. The second is an optimistic view of life in general, which is ironically at the same time one of uncertainty and not deprived of hope. I have also put all of my efforts in writing a work that is easy to comprehend, and as a result readable for everyone who is driven by mere interest. This is as such also a personal reaction to overly complex work that the philosopher tends to present. I do not wish to confuse anyone but rather give a simple account that can be discussed without the disadvantage of being interpreted in a variety of ways that can lead meaningful discussion astray.
Why a focus on daily life, or even more specifically, its struggles? I believe that Philosophy in its essence is first a way of guiding life and only second a love for knowledge. Love for knowledge lies at the essence of doing philosophy, but why people engage in philosophy has not been given sufficient attention. We start with life and its hurdles and to that we find philosophy. To those who reached out to philosophy there was an initial instinct that made it attractive compared to other meaningful activities, or at least a way to spend time. Love for knowledge, one could argue,
presupposes the will to inquire. To explore meaning, knowledge or doubt seems to lie in the heart of philosophy. How one explores depends on the philosophical doctrine favoured as beginning. However questions about daily life appear even before any question that arises out of a specific doctrine. I have the wish to explore these questions rather than the intricate questions that come forth by specific doctrines of philosophy. This also requires me to explain why my position seems fruitful compared to the more commonly visited forms of philosophy, as the inspiration for my position seems in no way popular.
In this paper I will explain why I think that the heart of philosophy is best expressed by Pyrrhonism. This position can be understood as taking no position at all. The doubt that brings one into the domain of philosophy will not disappear, in contrast it will only increase. Indeed the doubt will not be neglected but will instead remain as drive to inquire. I will revise traditional Pyrrhonism and build my own position of Ordinary Pyrrhonism. This is in response to the ambiguities concerning the possibility of holding some common sense beliefs by the Pyrrhonist as describes by Sextus Empiricus. I do not wish to claim to present the correct interpretation of his work, which seems a waste of precious effort, because of the clear disagreement found in secondary literature. I find it more fruitful to present my own stance as a response to the ambiguities that Sextus left us. Annas describes
how Sextus’s work is a representation of different forms of sceptic thinking that are represented in the same work.1 I would not be surprised if I grasped one of the work’s expressions, namely the form of scepticism she calls the urbane interpretation.2 This means allowing the existence of some beliefs in
Pyrrhonism. Although I will in the end advocate a personal stance that is renewed and thus different from traditional Pyrrhonism, it is at the same time a reliving of the ancient school of philosophy of Pyrrhonian Scepticism. I will refer to Pyrrhonian scepticism as Pyrrhonism in this work. There is just one reason for this clarifying suggestion, and that is the misunderstanding of the school. This
misunderstanding exists by confusing Pyrrhonism with Academic Scepticism. The distinction between the two needs to be clear. This is the first step of explaining Pyrrhonism.
It must be announced that I do not wish to abandon all discoveries that exist through our ‘modern god’ of science. This seems to be in stark contrast to traditional Pyrrhonism. Sextus does not want to make firm statement about nature through science.3 Richard Bett says that we know too much of natural science in our modern times to abandon some of its conclusions.4 I tend to agree with Bett on this point. It is undeniable that in modern times science has brought forth innovations, concepts and its own set of miracles and should be appreciated for these possibilities. This will also lead me to add some facts5 of science into common sense, which I allow in Ordinary Pyrrhonism. Acceptance of
common sense in Pyrrhonism is something I allow. Sextus supports the acceptance of undisputed ordinary belief in the Outlines in various sections of his writing.6
Nonetheless the unwavering trust of the people in science is a neglection of uncertainty that should not be protected. People should be inspired to think rather than to believe. Just as the Christian god had its acts instigated as what was to be deemed as true, so too does science mandate its followers to believe ‘facts’7. Facts that the rational human being would see as uncertain. I am most concerned by
the results of belief in these claims. To provide an image of my worries concerning the authority of science as the judge of truth we can look at a ‘fact’ that science propounds as true at this very moment.8
‘Corona virus is more deadly than typical flu’ is a message that has appeared in media9, which
claims the support of science. There is however contrasting information regarding the matter simply because of uncertainty. No chances for exciting Corona reports are overlooked as society’s eye is
1 Annas, xv. 2 Annas, xxiii.
3 PH 1.18; I use Annas translation of the Outlines. She speaks of the scepticist where I speak of the Pyrrhonist. I use Pyrrhonist not to confuse the Pyrrhonist sceptic with the Academic sceptic.
4 Bett, 2019, How to be a Pyrrhonist, 183-184.
5 I separate myself from the normal definition of fact, which is a thing that is known or proven to be true. Facts by my definition should not be regarded as absolute truths. It is rather what has been accepted into the common sense understanding of reality .
6 PH 1.13, 1.22, 1.226, 2.8.
7 I mean facts here in a different sense than previously. Just because scientific methods have been used in providing proof for a finding does not mean that it instantly deserves the label of fact. A finding can only achieve the state of fact in my current expression when it has been adopted by common sense.
8 The time of writing at this moment is the 4th of April 2020.
currently focused on nothing else, and thus the media gains benefit by highlighting it. But that is the less interesting part of the story. The problem is not such claims on themselves but the reaction of the people who are unable to assess the matter rationally and instead put all their trust in the authority of science. As uncertainty is not explored, but shoved away, acute panic rises. The worries are prevalent and politics is almost solely engaged in decreasing panic among the people. Panic that would not exist if people would put trust in their own thinking instead of science.
Beliefs can drive people into insanity. Unclarity however should inspire to explore the matter instead of taking a presupposed position. If this is taken as the first stance towards doubt one will eventually gain peace of mind or what Pyrrhonism called tranquillity. Then yes, disaster can still hit and sweep, but no struggles in the upholding of belief are entertained by the Pyrrhonist. Only initial worry can hurt, because all worries clinging to belief are foreign for the non-believer. This is what I advocate in this thesis, and also where I give credit to Pyrrhonism.
Pyrrhonism advocates a suspension of judgement. It is the philosophy that encourages inquiry. It always seems to end in a suspension of belief because of equally convincing or non-convincing positions on any appearance.10 It is characterized by careful thinking, doubting belief and being receptive towards the world. Taking belief as true should be avoided, but interestingly the Pyrrhonist still acts.11 How the Pyrrhonist can still act without affirming any belief as true or untrue is intriguing. The Pyrrhonist can act in accordance with the standards of action.12 One of these standards is law and custom. The interventions of the government concerning the previous Corona example can be seen as the exercise of this law, and thus cause the Pyrrhonist to act accordingly, without the belief that these interventions are the most adequate. The choice to conform to political decisions can be done
rationally through the common sense that being part of this community benefits me. I should comply to not only see my participation as harmonious to the whole of my community, but also to not end in prison.
The feelings that appear to me when I suspend my judgement on uncertain beliefs, or non-common beliefs, resonate with the tranquillity that Sextus described. I felt neither fear nor anger that could have come with believing the claim that corona is deadlier than flue as true or false. The confusion one might expect with a middle position of uncertainty also did not strike me with its gaze. In the end a Pyrrhonian stance towards life gives us two things that are not easily attained with any other method. The first is the drive to explore the matter in great detail. A Pyrrhonist would not take any belief for granted without enquiry into the matters that surround such a belief. The second is the tranquillity that comes with the suspension of judgement. A Pyrrhonian can feel an initial emotion as it appears but does not hold onto beliefs that could trap him within a cage of dogmatic belief.
10 PH 1.8. 11 PH 1.23. 12 PH 1.23.
Dogmatism for Sextus is any form of philosophy that holds beliefs and sometimes even a system of beliefs. Most importantly dogmatism holds belief that is disputed, and as such not accepted as common sense belief.13 One can easily understand that the moment that a belief holds, it results in
secondary beliefs that also hold. Therefore any belief can lead to a system of beliefs. In this way Dogmatism steers its inquiry in a certain direction, and limits its exploration. Pyrrhonists though, do not hold on to any dogmatic belief and can let themselves be guided by mere curiosity or any other drive towards exploration, rather than a beginning assumption that explains all of reality. Dogmatists claim that they have found truth.14
Sextus suggests that Dogmatists may have barred themselves from investigation, while for Pyrrhonists the reason for investigation, namely the question, is still very present.15 Cohen describes the Pyrrhonist in a similar way. The Pyrrhonist still philosophizes but in a different manner than the dogmatist. That is without hoping to reach some ultimate truth. The Pyrrhonist instead becomes a sceptical free-thinker, who enjoys throwing pro and con arguments, whilst taking them all as appearances.16 This does not mean that Sextus dogmatically claims that the Pyrrhonist gives up his
search for truth, since he does not assume the impossibility of truth.17
Scientists would defend themselves from being called dogmatists by saying that their science allows for facts to be negated. Science gives the option to test a given fact and if it proves to be false, adjust belief with the newly found evidence. This form of science has grown in popularity since the introduction of the Falsificationism of Popper. He views the best science to be the science that presents itself as open to falsification and sees progress as falsifications of these falsifiable
conclusions.18 But, when one proves something to be false they still create a belief of certainty, which is the certainty that this specific fact is false. While in this process the only logical solution should be that we cannot believe ‘facts’ to be either true or false, as they do not give us any definite answer that can be grounded. This is because the falsification on itself can be false. Science as such cannot seem to give definite truths as of yet.
The Pyrrhonism I present accepts ordinary belief without claiming it to be true. I present a philosophy that is an alternative to ungrounded belief in science and dogmatism. I will show that my Ordinary Pyrrhonism can function as a combined philosophical and psychological stance that can help humans in their daily struggles and their quest to an open minded form of philosophy enveloped in the uncertainty of life. 13 PH 2.8. 14 PH 1.3 15 PH 2.11, 2.11. 16 Cohen, 1984, 420-421. 17 PH 1.226 18 Chalmers, 1999, 60.
In the upcoming chapters I will go through the necessary steps to explain how my revised form of Pyrrhonism is an appealing position in modernity. In chapter 1 I will give a general overview of Pyrrhonism and modernity. It is needed to give a description of modernity to understand the applicability of both traditional and Ordinary Pyrrhonism. Also, I need to give a general overview of the traditional form of Pyrrhonism to elucidate where my own stance differs in later chapters. I will stay true to the more general understanding of Sextus’s work in the first three chapters to avoid pushing readers to attribute Ordinary Pyrrhonism to Sextus. In chapter 2 I will explain suspension of judgement in Pyrrhonism. This is an unique feature compared to other forms of philosophy and it is of utmost importance to explore this act in detail to understand how it makes the position of the
Pyrrhonist such an attractive one. The process of suspending judgement and its consequence of tranquillity in the mind will be exposed. I will show with the use of an example how suspension of belief works and how it ends in tranquillity.
In chapter 3 I will discuss how Pyrrhonism is related to life in general. It is important to know when the way of the Pyrrhonist appears during daily life and how it is beneficial in these times to be a Pyrrhonist. This chapter will mainly consist of three different examples I use to give a sense of the psychological effects of suspending judgement. This chapter is mainly used to show how the
Pyrrhonian act is beneficial in daily modern life. I think this is done best by examples that are relatable for the common individual.19 This will make the stance more comprehensible than solely a systematic
viewing of suspending judgement. I will give an overview in chapter 4 of what appearance is for the Pyrrhonist. It is important to know that the Pyrrhonist does think there is a world of certainty, and this is the world of appearances. Next to simple appearances Sextus Empiricus gave four standards of action. The standards are used for the Pyrrhonist to be able to live with the appearances and act accordingly. This chapter will begin the separation from traditional Pyrrhonism and introduce my Ordinary Pyrrhonism. I will discuss the ambiguities in tradition Pyrrhonism, and how this explains choices in my own position.
Afterwards I will explain in chapter 5 how David Hume’s scepticism is related to Ordinary Pyrrhonism and can help in understanding the position. Although Hume differs in many aspects from the Pyrrhonist, he can give aid in understanding the liveability of adopting the Pyrrhonist position. Hume was convinced of being sceptical and its effect on the happy life. He discussed habits in his work, which can explain not only the adopting of standards of action but also their development through history. The adopting of standards of action is important in this specific work. It is something that Sextus has not given sufficient attention to in his Outlines. In my eyes it is the one thing that can give clarity about how the Pyrrhonist can live an active live. Hume’s work will support my account of
19 With common I mean the average human being. I try to create an archetype that will encompass individuality in the most genera l sense, but of course it will be difficult to have the individual expressed in a general example. Nonetheless I feel that any ind ividual can find common grounds with the common individual that I will present.
Ordinary Pyrrhonism and give further insight in the standards of action. In chapter 6 Dogmatism is explored. I will present dogmatist philosophy and discuss its appeal and danger. This will be used to eventually argue Ordinary Pyrrhonism to be the more fruitful expression of philosophy. Finally we will finish with the closing chapter encompassing all of our explorations into a satisfactory conclusion.
1. Modernity and Pyrrhonism
1.1 ModernityAntiquity can be seen as the birthplace of early scientific development. In a world where Zeus made thunder and the moon and sun were believed to be gods the Greeks originated science.20 Their scientific speculations were extraordinary. Aristarchus’s speculations of the heliocentric system, Anaximander’s notion that men originated from animals of a different species, and Democritus’s theory of atoms.21 The Greeks also pushed the primacy of rational thought, thereby laying the ground for modernity and its seeming control over nature.22 It would not be considered insane to claim that the Greeks grasped the ideal of science as well as scientists do today. Although the Greeks were already invested in science it seems that time was necessary to create the inventions and methods that we have today. In our modern time we have the possibility to soar through the air and communicate with someone on the other side of the world in a matter of seconds. If I had to point to anything that is clearly different from ancient times it would be the industrialized and globalized way of living that people have grown accustomed to.
Kofi Ackah emphasizes this in his comparison between antiquity and modern times. While he stresses that modernity has a lot of good things to offer, it also causes certain unintended side effects.23 There has been an increasing scientific attitude to nature. Western science is focused on strict
accumulation of facts, and derives its value from these facts. In antiquity people saw themselves as part of nature, while in modernity humanity sees itself more as separated from nature.24 Modernity’s separation treats nature as an object, set apart from value, which the human subject can manipulate to satisfy human needs and wants.25 Ackah argues that science can be seen as causing a deepening of our empirical understanding of nature, but this does not mean that we understand its actual deeper
meaning.26 In that sense we have no higher claim to reality than humanity in antiquity. Our increasing power over nature and our economic system created a variety in goods far beyond our needs,
20 Livingstone, 1935, 178. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ackah, 2014, 1-2. 24 O.c., 2. 25 O.c., 2-3. 26 Ackah, 2014, 3.
establishing a consumer driven society that pursues higher standards of living.27 This can create
problems for nature in the form of increased pollution and oversaturation of the earth, which Ackah establishes as a side effect of modern society.28 It can be argued that human consciousness has
developed as a reaction to these side effects. This would imply that humanity evolved in its
understanding of responsibility to nature, and human’s power to preserve it. But Ackah argues that this understanding was already present in old Greece. There was investment in groves, sacredness of certain rivers and other vital sections of the ecology that were protected.29
With the automatization by machinery, work has made a general shift from tasks of manual labour to tasks that require mental agility.30 Together with the abundance of unhealthy foods, that has
its appeal through irresistible tastes and smells that tend to break down the restraints of appetite, humans in westernized countries have degraded in overall physical health.31 Family bonds can be seen as less strong in general. The industrialized world asks people to move to far away locations for work, thus creating a more individualized community, which can deprive human beings of any sense of belonging.32 Ackah gives us an image of modern society that has problems in its comparison to
antiquity. The scientific view of nature has given rise to economic growth and industrialization that creates a society more detached from nature, facing problems by its increasing wants and needs that negatively impact not only individual health but also the health of nature. Additionally there is a detachment from the family in an increasingly individualistic culture.
Philosophy did not stand still in its development, and it seems similar in its development as the previously sketched picture. Habermas gives a general overview of the development in
philosophical discourse over time. This is what I will use in describing the development of philosophy in a brief manner, as an exploration of all philosophical work seems to be an unrewarding and even impossible task. Modernity33 has created a plethora of philosophical work that was not yet present in antiquity. There has been an increased focus on subjective rationality in Descartes that was further developed by Kant, and this still plays an important role in modern philosophical discussion.34 Kant limited rationality and its access to the external world.35 This can be linked to the earlier point that human reasoning has received increased attention, but it seems to detach itself from the external world as a result. Kant introduces the noumenal world as unknowable:
27 Ackah, 3. 28 O.c., 14. 29 O.c., 14. 30 O.c., 8. 31 O.c,, 17. 32 O.c,, 14.
33 There is the ongoing debate of what modernity is, and if we should not consider our current epoch as post-modernity. I want to make clear that it is not my goal here to decide on this matter. I have no interest in how we should term our current age. I hav e decided to name the year of writing this work modernity. Modernity in this specific work will therefore be defined as the year of 2020.
34 Habermas, 1987, viii. 35 O.c., 302.
“Our understanding attains in this way a sort of negative extension. That is to say, it is not limited by, but rather limits, sensibility, by giving the name of noumena to things, not considered as phenomena,
but as things in themselves. But it at the same time prescribes limits to itself, for it confesses itself unable to cognize these by means of the categories, and hence is compelled to cogitate them merely as
an unknown something.”36
Kant describes that the external world does not lend its true essence to our senses. They are things in themselves, which we do not have access to with our limited rationality. This inspired others to study the limits of rationality instead of the external world. This turn to the subject, its freedom and its power of rationality created a whole line of philosophy that is known as German Idealism. In this tradition Hegel focused on the importance of history in reaction to Kant’s focus on the subject,37 and
this focus on history was gaining popularity afterwards. Humanity was now viewed in its historical development, which does not have the need to explain the external world beyond humanity’s senses.
Nietzsche then tried to show the end of philosophy in the death of God and the destruction of the primacy of reason in the world.38 Habermas describes how this invited critique concerning the power of rationality and the importance of the subject. Habermas reacted with his own view of
communicative action as what should define modern philosophy.39 He upholds the historical view that Hegel propounded but does away with the primacy of rationality and the subject that Hegel
propounded.40 Habermas criticizes that a subject can find truth on its own, but needs others to find truth. He denounces the power of individual knowing, which seems to have been a prevalent conviction from Descartes all the way to Hegel.
This is a limited accumulation of philosophers that can be seen as characterizing the change within philosophical discussion through time. If anything philosophy can be seen in early development as drifting away from viewing the world through absolute ontological truths towards an increasing focus on subjectivity and freedom, and now as critical of this shift. There was also a need to account for God or gods in both daily life and philosophy. There is no longer such need, and it is now no longer necessary to account for these absolute notions. There seems to be a more historical,
mechanical and subjective understanding in today’s philosophy which can be seen as a reflection of current modern daily life as opposed to ancient Greece.
Next to that there has been increased globalization and cultures have been mixed, and so have traditions. There are traditions that are solely practiced in certain parts of the world, but there also seems to be an urge to replicate traditions individuals become fond of. For example Buddhism and its practice in the western world. Or the rising popularity of Asian cuisine in Europe. Other practices are
36 Kant, 1855, 159. 37 Habermas, 1987, 303. 38 O.c., 301.
39 O.c, X.
40 O.c, 301; This of course depends on the reading of Hegel. The importance here is the shift from a focus from the subject to the interconnectivity between subjects.
no longer mandatory and are now even considered unique. It was custom in some part of the Netherlands to pray before dinner or visit church on Sundays, but these are no longer common practices.
Modern philosophy is characterized by its different disciplines and schools of thought. In western philosophy this has been so since antiquity. The ancient Greeks already had schools that lived by their respective doctrines. Nowadays when starting a study in philosophy, the courses commonly start with assumptions typical to specific schools of thought, and works forward from these grounds. This is very similar to the course one takes in modern life in general. One works with basic principles educated in primary schools, takes these grounds to high school, and is afterwards ready to specialize in higher education or specific labour. What is noticeable about these steps is that society grants a certain baseline to work with, and individuals are consequently left with choices between these different dimensions that we built a basic understanding upon.
Choices or freedom to choose are not only well-developed topics within Philosophy but are essential to life overall. To make the ‘correct’ choices individuals will have to strongly believe that their choice provides meaning to their life. Other options would be to choose randomly, by instinct, based on the suggestions of others or not make a choice at all. I wish to argue that this process is fundamental to the struggles we find in daily life. Ackah shows reason to regard these choices as more characteristic of modernity than of antiquity. Specifically in education there is a shift from more general education to subject specialisation.41 Individuals become so specialized that it becomes hard to ground a choice on the firm belief that it is the right choice. If one believes that one has made the wrong choice it would not be strange for negative feelings to flourish. Conversely if one is in constant doubt about what is the correct choice a feeling of despair could develop. On the flipside one could strongly believe one made the right choice in life and feel content or happy as a result. In an era of choice we might want guidance or a standard of living, so that we do not live in despair or
unhappiness. This is where I will advocate a position known as Pyrrhonism, and ultimately Ordinary Pyrrhonism.
1.2 Pyrrhonism
Pyrrhonism is not a commonly visited form of philosophy. During all my study of Philosophy I only came across it once, but it did stick with me through all other forms of activity and thought from that moment on. Pyrrhonism can be summarized as not a doctrine at all, but something arising even before the epistemological question.42 It is a way of living rather than a base of assumptions concerning truth and knowledge, which is why it can be invigorating for anyone who is searching for a way to deal with 41 Ackah, 2014, 7.
42 What is knowledge? Beliefs are needed to give an account of knowledge, and this does not seem to work the other way around. Therefore one could say that an account of belief comes before that of knowledge.
daily life. In contrast to modern philosophy Hellenistic philosophy seems engaged in finding the key to happiness or living well. Jullia Annas43 likewise shows her opinion in the goal of Hellenistic philosophies in general:
“Scepticism is offered as a recipe for happiness. After all, scepticism is an ancient philosophy; and ancient philosophies were, in general, offered as recipes for happiness”44
Tranquillity is described by Sextus as being free of the troubled mind, at least in matters of opinion.45 It is unclear if tranquillity can lead to happiness. Richard Bett argues that the Pyrrhonist cannot claim that their scepticism leads to eudaimonia,46 which he describes as a happy life in general.47 This is because that would imply that the Pyrrhonist claims that his philosophy results in happiness, and would thus affirm Pyrrhonism as leading to eudaimonia. But the Pyrrhonist can still express that it appears to him that he is eudaimon, and that this appears to be the result of an untroubled mind that is achieved by his suspension of judgement.
Instead of relying on beliefs Pyrrhonism goes by the world of appearances.48 Pyrrhonists take life as it appears to them rather than forming beliefs about these appearances. Pyrrhonism cannot cause the formation of beliefs, because it shows that the truthfulness of belief is unclear. Essential in
understanding Pyrrhonism is that it does not claim the impossibility of truth. This is in contrast to Academic Scepticism, which claims the impossibility of truth and knowledge.49 Many of the criticisms of Scepticism attack the Academic form rather than the Pyrrhonist form, even when they announce refuting Pyrrhonism with their argumentation.
Bett argues against the result of tranquillity by suspending judgement.50 He describes that not holding beliefs would not lead to a peaceful state of mind because there would no longer be any secure values to cling to and humanity would lose meaning in their lives.51 If anything, he argues, this would
be more disturbing than comforting. He elaborates that ceasing to believe that anything has any real value would not result in tranquillity, but in despair born of a sense of meaninglessness.52 This critique
would work if the Pyrrhonist would hold on to the belief that there is no meaning in life.53 The Pyrrhonist however does not accept this assumption because this is also a belief, and we have concluded that the Pyrrhonist does not hold beliefs. Therefore Bett’s critique is directed to the Academic Sceptic and not to the Pyrrhonist. Although Pyrrhonism does not appear to allow the
43 I will be using the translation of Annas & Barnes of the outlines of Pyrrhonian scepticism by Sextus Empiricus as the main w ork in my investigation on what Pyrrhonism is.
44 Annas, xxx. 45 PH, 1.25. 46 Bett, 2012, 15 47 O.c., 12 48 PH 1.9. 49 Kuzminski, 2008, 10.
50 Both tranquillity and suspension of judgement are explored in chapter 2. 51 Bett, 2019, 180.
52 O.c., 181.
affirmation of beliefs, it does urge us to keep looking, to keep searching and to keep thinking. In a society where beliefs are professed to be essential in making choices and living truthfully to oneself it becomes hard to see how a doctrine that does not hold any belief can give us any benefit. In spite of this I am invested in showing the appeal of the Pyrrhonist attitude.
2. Suspending Judgement, Tranquillity and its practical application.
2.1 Suspension of judgement and tranquillityTo suspend one’s judgement means the coming to a standstill of the intellect, and this leads to tranquillity.54 This seems to imply that the Pyrrhonist decides that there is no further investigation needed to reach the conclusion that all accounts are equally convincing or unconvincing. The intellect is put to rest by the suspension of judgement, and then some kind of peaceful state arises. The chief constituent of being a Pyrrhonist is the claim that to every account an equal account is opposed, and it is from this that they cannot hold any belief.55
The process itself consists of a few steps described by Sextus Empiricus. In the enquiry of something that is uncertain56 a Pyrrhonist uses his Pyrrhonian ability to set out oppositions among things that appear.57 It shows the equipollence in the opposed objects and accounts. Equipollence
means that all the accounts reach a state of being equally convincing and unconvincing in their comparison, and that none of the accounts have more right to constitute a belief than the other.58 It is important to note that this is not only an affirmation or a negation of a specific belief. It is rather conflicting accounts that are both investigated in sufficient detail.59 Sextus does not seem to give us much clarity on how to decide that things are equally convincing. It seems that it cannot be decided logically that different opinions are equally convincing in the end. This is because argumentation for a position is dependent on certain presuppositions, and they carry this same problem. Therefore it seems that the decision that positions are equally convincing must come forth from a certain kind of instinct or ability.
The problem is that it is unclear when someone correctly uses his Pyrrhonian ability, and if it differs for individuals when they might reach equipollence. It seems that the investigation continues until this state of equipollence is reached, and this can take an immense amount of exploration, which seems to differ for individuals in when they reach it. There is no objective measure of when to decide that equipollence is reached. If there is no objective standard and it differs per person when
54 PH 1.10. 55 PH 1.12.
56 The things that are uncertain are all the things that do not show themselves in appearances. They can be easily recognized, e specially in philosophy, by all the dispute that surrounds them.
57 PH 1.8. 58 PH 1.8. 59 PH 1.10.
equipollence is reached with different tools it presents us with the problem of relativism. As Bett mentions things are good or bad for an individual only in a relative sense.60 But this does not mean that when a person thinks something is good for him it is automatically good for him. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.61 There seems to be no guide when to accept something is convincing, and it therefore depends solely on personal preference.
But Bett mentions an important distinction between relativism and Pyrrhonism. The difference between relativism and Pyrrhonism is that Pyrrhonism does not deny the possibility of the real nature of things. Relativism dispenses with the idea that there can be an independent reality outside of our perception.62 So even though it can differ per person in how one reaches equipollence, it does not
assume anything about how things are in truth, and the correct path to equipollence. Sextus cannot conclude that there is no possibility of an objective standard, because that would be a very dogmatic thing to do. I will have to account for relativity in my presentation of Ordinary Pyrrhonism, since now it seems purely subjective when someone reaches equipollence. There seems to be a sort of relativity in play, but it should not lead to the conclusion that things are purely relative, because this is on itself a definitive conclusion.
The intuition that there is some acceptance of relativity is supported by Sextus in his
comparison with the Protagorean school. He mentions that the relativity of the Protagorean persuasion is something they and the Pyrrhonist have in common.63 Sextus also introduces relativity in the ten modes. These modes are used to create counterarguments against beliefs.64 The eight mode is the one deriving from relativity.65 Both uses of relativity can be interpreted as merely the use of relativity for
the purpose of suspending judgement, but it is enough to at least suspect a relation between relativity and Pyrrhonism. However, from this we can still deduce that the Pyrrhonist simply keeps on
investigating until equipollence is reached, which can be reached in different ways by different individuals. This is not an affirmation that reality is explained by relativism.
Reaching equipollence leads first to the suspension of judgement, and afterwards to tranquillity.66 In first light not affirming any belief may feel like nihilism. That nothing has any
meaning at all. This is where Pyrrhonism is misunderstood as Academic scepticism. It is the nihilism of the Academics in their formulation of the negation of belief that nothing can be known at all which is made explicit here.67 However suspending belief rather than affirming or denying belief is not nihilism. It is a return to the thing we have in common: our experience of the direct appearance of the
60 Bett, 1994, 134. 61 Ibid. 62 O.c., 149. 63 PH 1.216 64 PH 1.36 65 PH 1.135 66 Kuzminski, 2008, 18. 67 Kuzminski, 2008, 14.
world.68 This is before we decide to reconstruct the direct world into beliefs. Pyrrhonism has the world
hold its meaning in its essence, where it is not deconstructed into what seems logical by an overcomplex system of beliefs.
2.2 The process of suspension
When one thinks Pyrrhonism leads to a passive mind, since it has no drive for being active, this is simply not true. Sextus makes clear that suspending judgement is not suspending thought. We continue to think just as we continue to have sensations, but all of these end in the suspension of judgement.69 The curious inquiring mind that philosophers are so fond of is not lost in Pyrrhonism. It
is Academic Scepticism that caused the labelling of scepticism as the impossibility of inquiry, and that has sadly remained its principal meaning ever since,70 but Pyrrhonism approves the act of inquiry. The
original meaning of the word ‘sceptic’ is actually inquirer or someone who examines.71 Pyrrhonism does not do away with the curious enquiring mind, because it is what Pyrrhonism advocates, and it is its starting position. I will now present the process of the suspension of judgement in full clarity with the use of an example to improve our understanding of the Pyrrhonian act. I will illustrate an example that is for the philosopher reason to not adopt the Pyrrhonist stance, by showing a belief that he will surely not want to abandon in fear of the consequences.
Let us take a look at the belief that Philosophy has a meaningful existence in modern day society. The belief itself gives Philosophy a certain positive quality that we do not wish to discard, for what would it mean if we deem this belief to be untrue? Let us look at reasons to assent to this belief. Philosophy can be seen as the groundwork for science. Philosophy is known for its analytical character and understanding of principles, and science would not exist without it. Philosophy challenges the mind, and causes people to truly use their intellectual capacities to create understanding in important questions, such as what is a human? Is there a goal in life? What is knowledge? Perhaps all questions that seem to be in the interest of many people and, as a result, are important to thoroughly analyse in the benefit of these people. There has been philosophy since ancient times, as such it must be essential to humans in some way, and if we let go of this movement we may lose an essential part of the
education of humankind as a whole. Ethics is practiced extensively within philosophy. If we wish to be good humans, practicing philosophy seems to be an effective way to become good. Lastly analytical skills are trained which makes a philosopher an excellent thinker who can contribute in many different areas of the working life.
68 O.c., 4. 69 PH 2.10.
70 Kuzminski, 2018, 10.
71 O.c., 3; although if someone googles the definition today it will show that the sceptic is the one who denies the possib ility of knowledge, which Sextus does not do.
This is an overall convincing picture of why philosophy has a meaningful existence in modern day society. But we wouldn’t be true Pyrrhonists if we would not try to make a complete inquiry of the matter. So on the other side we might say: Philosophy is too hypothetical and speculative. It cannot be proven that it contributes to daily science or life. All sciences work within their own paradigms and do not seem to need philosophy to create new methods of research that have shown significant results for science. The only people that can actually benefit from philosophy are philosophers themselves, since their texts are too cryptic for the average Joe. And even if they would devote an immense amount of time in translating a text, they would end up with a common sense message such as ‘history is important to understand human being as a whole in its development’.72 Such information could have
been learned in 5 minutes. Instead Joe spent a month struggling to decipher what was said after every third comma in every second sentence. Philosophy may challenge the mind, but other disciplines can do this just as much, such as advanced math, artificial intelligence or biomechanics. Can any
philosophy be taken serious if their theories are always susceptible for critique? In the end all philosophy is just an assembly of convictions that people want to convince others of.
Above I have given both an account in favour and against the belief that philosophy has a meaningful existence in modern society. It has to be noted that this is merely me spouting arguments that appear to me as they are, and the briefness does not do justice to the possibility of strong
argumentation in favour of any of the given positions. Overall the account given above may still seem unconvincing from one of the two sides for the reader, which is probably the side that they would not take as their own. For these readers, if they wish to put their Pyrrhonian ability73 to the test, it is their own challenge to give arguments for both positions until they reach equipollence. The argumentation I have personally given may not appear sufficient or logically coherent for some, but sometimes a weak argument is enough for the Pyrrhonist, since it only needs to cure dogmatic rashness.74
A counterargument to equipollence is that one side of the argument is much more convincing than the other and that we could not possibly accept that they are in the end equally convincing. This is a counterargument that Bett uses. In our modern day world there are just some beliefs that are so likely that they cannot possibly attain an equally convincing opposing account.75 But Bett seems to forget one of the ways Pyrrhonists deal with this case, which is perhaps my favourite counterargument that the Pyrrhonist uses. A counterargument may not be available in our current time, but it can present itself in the future, and therefore we need to suspend our judgement.76 This may seem silly and a weak argument, but Bett actually strengthens the argument by saying that in the ancient time of the
72 An oversimplification of an interpretation from the Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel.
73 This means how capable anyone is in seeing the opposition as equally convincing or unconvincing. By Sextus’s own argument in PH 2.40 it cannot be said that anyone is the complete Pyrrhonist. This is because there may be someone in the future who can be descr ibed as a better Pyrrhonist than those who came before him. This leads to the question when is anyone considered a Pyrrhonist? A question I will try to answer in chapter 5.
74 PH 3.281. 75 Bett, 2019, 183. 76 PH 1.34.
Pyrrhonist school it may have been more plausible to always find an equally opposed account compared to modern times. He presents the availability of certain arguments as being dependent on time, and as a result makes this last counterargument of the Pyrrhonist more convincing.
It is unclear when the Pyrrhonist is done enquiring and suspends judgement. I would say that the Pyrrhonist is never truly done with enquiring, but suspends judgement automatically when everything seems balanced once again. If anything the Pyrrhonist seems to go through this specific process constantly, giving a balanced account on certain beliefs that causes them to suspend their judgement on the matter. All the different arguments, in addition to the original claim, are by
themselves beliefs, and this also shows how a Pyrrhonist may enquire in many matters, by examining all these separate beliefs. For example the argument that philosophy challenges the mind from my example can be investigated by itself. It can be deduced that the Pyrrhonist is as a result constantly investigating, until the suspension of judgement becomes a sort of second nature. Or rather, as we spoke of earlier, a return to an original nature.
This could present itself as a counterargument against the claim that tranquillity is reached by suspending judgement, as the Pyrrhonist never seems to stop inquiring. But if done continuously through life it would not be strange to think that even this whole process becomes a habit for the Pyrrhonist.77 It may even cause him to eventually have beliefs always appear in a state of equipollence, which would cause the Pyrrhonist to not even leave his state of tranquillity. But this is all merely speculative, and both accounts seem equally plausible, and therefore I will suspend my judgement. The suspension of judgement is important for modern daily life in that it creates the ability to always see things in perspective, staying true to the world of appearances instead of clinging to beliefs that are uncertain.
3. The life related aspects of Pyrrhonism
3.1 The life of the PyrrhonistA large part of living as a Pyrrhonist raises the question of how anyone who does not hold belief lives at all? Sextus describes how a Pyrrhonist lives by following law, custom, guidance by nature and necessitation of feeling.78 The Pyrrhonist is not a passive individual that has made it his sole task to suspend beliefs during the day. He also lives his life, and goes through its hurdles. The part that differentiates the Pyrrhonist from the dogmatist is found in the areas of life that involve belief. This is a difficult step to take in our exploration of life related belief in general. For belief seems to have the
77 Which would be an indication of someone who has truly endorsed the Pyrrhonian way of life in my eyes, and transform someone w ho aspires to be a Pyrrhonist to gain the character of a Pyrrhonist in addition to his aspiration.
ability to arise during all activities of life. It is here that we see that Pyrrhonism could be a stance that involves all of daily life. This does not mean that belief, as Sextus intends its meaning, arises all the time as well.
Burnyeat claims that what Sextus meant with belief is simply seeing anything as true.79 This is exactly what Burnyeat thinks Sextus advocates against, and something I agree with. But Burnyeat makes a move against those that would uphold that Sextus allows for some beliefs. In expecting the counterargument that there are certain beliefs that Sextus allows, Burnyeat makes a distinction between an ambitious type of belief and a more ordinary form of belief.80 He describes the ambitious type as the one Sextus eschews, and the one that is characteristic of the dogmatist. This same
distinction is also made by Vogt. Sextus speaks of the difference between dogma and doxa.81 Although these can at times be used almost interchangeably, dogma mostly refers to somewhat weightier
claims.82 Doxa can be seen as non-dogmatic and could be seen as acceptable. Burnyeat then continues in showing that this is not what Sextus intended and that he truly wishes to suspend all belief.83 I however tend to disagree in one aspect. I propose that we should allow the acceptance of something as non-dogmatic belief, but not affirm it as true. Sextus mentions in passage 1.13 of the Outlines that the Pyrrhonist does not mean belief in the general way, and he has written several other passages that suggest the acceptance of common sense belief.84 I believe that accepted common beliefs are found in what Sextus describes as the standards of action.85
Action necessitated by feeling is one of the standards of action for Sextus. But not all of these standards are as commonly seen between communities as feelings. For example custom and laws are different for different communities. In modern times some communities prohibit gay marriage, while others do not. These differences in laws and customs in communities cause difference in actions between individuals. But it seems that these laws and customs are consequently open for change, and such change is made by the agreement within a community. Agreement that can certainly be regarded as agreement of common beliefs. I agree with Burnyeat that affirmation of belief as true is what Sextus eschews, but I believe Burnyeat’s step of not allowing beliefs in general is incorrect. Sextus seems to allow belief that is without controversy, which is not the same as saying anything about the truth of this belief. In 1.22 of the Outlines where Sextus introduces the standards of action, he makes a distinction between two interpretations of standards. The first is the one he does not allow, which is a standard that is surrounded by controversy and is thus uncertain. But the second form he defines by something that no one (presumably) will raise controversy over. Sextus adds these standards without
79 Burnyeat, 2012, 230. 80 OC, 225.
81 Doxa meaning common belief or popular opinion. 82 Vogt, 2012, 655
83 Burnyeat, 2012, 228. 84 PH 1.22, 1.226, 2.8, 2.102. 85 PH 1.21.
controversy to the world of appearances. This shows that Sextus allows for certain beliefs, but of the ordinary kind.
Ordinary belief is accepted by the community, or maybe even by a long life individually.86 Vogt also argues along these lines. In order to explain Pyrrhonist activity, Sextus must allow for some kind of acceptance of belief, something that allows the appearance to be effective as a guide and motivator for action.87 Vogt continues by showing that this is exactly what the commemorative sign is for a Pyrrhonist.88 In my translation it is the distinction between indicative and recollective signs.89
The recollective sign is equal to the commemorative sign. ‘Seeing smoke can lead us to believe there is fire’ is the example for Sextus, but this assenting to what is convincing is different from assenting to dogmatic assumptions. Assuming there to be fire can put one into action, for example to flee or extinguish the fire. Recollective signs can be seen as a form of common sense belief, and it gives standards of action that are part of the world of appearances the Pyrrhonist act on.
The forming and agreeing upon standards seems more apparent for custom, laws and expertise than it is for nature’s guidance and necessitation by feelings. Sextus clearly mentions that from an everyday point of view we accept that piety is good and impiety is bad.90 This is a matter of accepting the customs and norms within a society. This does not imply that Sextus thinks that these are deemed to be true norms fitted to reality, but I think that if a Pyrrhonist wishes to live in action he needs to accept these beliefs nonetheless. This interpretation has consequences for the understanding of Pyrrhonism as a modern doctrine and how we should understand standards of action. I continue this investigation further in my redefining of the standards of action in chapter 4.
3.2 The Sam examples
Beliefs that raise controversy are present every day. Indeed if these beliefs can be present in all of life it seems impossible to attain a full account of every situation where being a Pyrrhonist can have an effect. To get more insight in how it is to live as a Pyrrhonist and its appeal we can investigate examples. But as there are so many different situations it serves clarity to limit our use of examples to those that can give most information on how a Pyrrhonist deals with daily life. The variability in a life is immense and varies per individual. It would therefore be wise to limit our exploration first. It is too arduous a task to present examples that account for every individual on the earth, also I deem myself incapable of sympathizing with the deep hurt that have struck some individuals, as I have not yet been
86 I will argue that in the end the standards are decided upon by the community. But yes there are individual differences that c an provide individual standards.
87 Vogt, 2012, 660. 88 Ibid.
89 PH 2.102. 90 PH 1.23.
part of the many horrors of human life other than the loss of a loved one. I propose my fictional character of Sam. She is what I deem to be representative of the average western adult.91
In summing up the domains of the average westerner’s life it would not be weird to talk of social life, work life and free life as the three main activities for Sam. The individual is either engaged in his work, meeting up with loved ones or spending his free time through activities of preference. These are obvious domains in which any western individual spends his time, therefore the examples should serve a wide audience, and at least one of the examples should make the Pyrrhonist stance clear. It is easy to pick a negative belief around any of the three domains to put Pyrrhonism in a positive light, therefore it is more challenging to take a positive belief within the domains and see how Pyrrhonism would still rise as an attractive alternative. It is important to keep in mind that Pyrrhonism means not holding any belief and the opposite would be to hold a belief. Let us start with work life.
Sam holds the belief that as a banker she has one of the more refined jobs. If asked she will answer without any hesitation that she is extremely happy with her occupation and enjoys her time working. She is content with her earnings and believes it to be adequate to her financial demands. There are no other jobs Sam rather fulfils than her current job.
In this example it would be absurd to say that Sam’s belief causes her suffering in any way or harms her state of mind. If anything it seems to bring joy to her life, since every time she thinks of her job it gives her a positive feeling. The belief that she holds a good job seems to bring her happiness and fortune. Then how could this belief limit her capacity for happiness?
Now the bank goes bankrupt. The bank is no longer able to offer Sam the job and she gets fired. Sam is left with the belief that the work that she no longer has is the job she wants and needs. This belief is no longer coherent with her circumstances and she therefore despairs. None of the other available workplaces are as good as the one she initially embraced. She loved the staff, the desks and everything surrounding it, but she can only indulge in the memories. She endures despair for two weeks, then finds a new job as a librarian, but holds on to her initial belief and as a result no longer enjoys her current work. Her previous job was what she wanted and still wants three years later as she fulfils her duties as the librarian, but with constant pain in her heart.
Sam clings to belief instead of suspending judgement. Let us see how a Pyrrhonist would have gone through the similar scenario. He would not hold the belief that work as a banker is the best work that is available. This however is not a prerequisite to enjoy work as a banker. A Pyrrhonist can still experience pleasures that are derived initially from pleasurable work. Any time something is finished it can be an instigator of pleasurable feelings, there are just no beliefs that prolong such feelings. A Pyrrhonist would return to its state of tranquillity, which if anything can be seen as a desired state for a
Pyrrhonist.92 So both the Pyrrhonist and Sam are in a desired mental state. The conviction that the
work is good does not carry any additional benefits in acquiring a desired mental state. The problem for Sam comes into existence when she gets fired. The belief that the work is good is now an
impediment to her mental health. Pyrrhonists are not undisturbed in every way. They can be disturbed by things forced upon them,93 but Sam is also disturbed by the belief that the nature of the happening
is bad. While the Pyrrhonist can get upset over the initial losing of work he will not fall into despair, because he holds no belief that causes him to. The Pyrrhonist achieves the same state in his new work of librarian, for he does not hold the belief that this work is inferior. In the end the desired mental state is experienced in both cases but only Sam experiences lingering despair. Let us now change our perspective towards social life.
Sam has the belief that she can provide great mental support for her friends. Anytime they suffer from negative thoughts Sam knows how to deal with those, and gladly helps her friends in need. They expressed multiple times that they appreciate her efforts to help them and there is no one else they rather have talked to in their time of worry. Sam’s belief that she holds an empathic posture, and the quality of a kind listener is strengthened by these expressions of gratitude from her friends. But one day Sam overhears her friends, where they describe Sam as annoying and intrusive into their personal matters. Sam is shocked as they initially expressed to be happy with her supportive actions. On a later time one of these friends again expresses his gratitude towards Sam’s empathic behaviour. Not only does her friend now lie, but Sam’s conviction of her empathic strength conflicts with the remarks on her intrusive behaviour. Not knowing which to hold as true Sam becomes unsure how to act in front of her friends. Her beliefs make their contact awkward and she holds on to these thoughts for a year until she finds the courage to speak up. Her friends surprisingly responded that everyone has some annoying aspects, and it wasn’t as big of a deal for them as it may have seemed to Sam. Relieved Sam could finally let go of the fear of not being liked by her best friends.
In this example Sam acts in a certain way because of her beliefs, and also clings to these beliefs even though they seem uncertain. The key component of this example is that she did not explore the matter fully, but instantly held beliefs as a response. Sam held on to a small sample of beliefs which she did not further investigate. She held on to them as likely truths without deciding which one was more convincing, and this caused conflict and a troubled mind. The Pyrrhonist would have investigated further until equipollence was reached and thus suspension of judgement. This shows the benefit of the Pyrrhonist way of searching for a full account of matters. Let’s now explore an example that represents spending time in a life of freedom.
92 Kuzminski, 2008, 11. 93 PH 1.29.
Sam always had an urge to spend her time productively. She’s been playing the piano for over four years, and has made it a habit to play at least half an hour every day. She wishes to play an hour every day but she is unsuccessful in her aspiration. After a heavy day of work she rather skims through Facebook and watches Netflix the rest of the night. Every time she does these, by her considered as, unproductive activities she feels guilt and shame. She believes to be successful in the rest of her life activities and ponders; why can’t she do this? She finds herself troubled by feelings of failure, while falling back into old habits, but with an additional sense of guilt.
Sam has a certain belief of what is to be termed productive. She also carries an additional belief that she should be more productive, since she would not have termed these other activities as ‘failures’ if she did not carry this belief. It isn’t that the Pyrrhonist would act differently or be more successful in adopting productive behaviour. I do not wish to claim that the Pyrrhonist would succeed in making the half hour a full hour. But, the Pyrrhonist would spend these so termed unproductive forms of activities in tranquillity rather than in guilt or with a feeling of failure. There is no reason to be convinced that it is unproductive or a failure of acting. The Pyrrhonist perspective here is most clearly depicted as a remedy to negative thinking that is caused by the holding of beliefs. Although Sextus Empiricus calls his Pyrrhonist counterarguments purgative drugs,94 he presents these as
purgative drugs for dogmatic stances. It can also be understood as clearing one’s mind in daily life from the pressures of dogmatic belief. To be productive continuously can be seen as a dogmatic stance in modern times. It has been shown that norms that one sees as true can cause a sense of helplessness through serial failing to adopt to them.95 This is similar to the repetitive failure I depicted in the third Sam example. Purging the belief of helplessness by counterarguments, and acquiring tranquillity by suspending judgement is the Pyrrhonist remedy.
These examples showed a few key components in favour of the Pyrrhonist attitude towards life. The first argument showed that having a positively inclined belief does not lead to a more superior form of a state of mind, as a state of tranquillity is the desired end for a Pyrrhonist.
Tranquillity can therefore be regarded as just as much of an desired mental state as the happiness that comes in accordance with one’s belief. While the initial positive belief can be an impediment as well, the state of tranquillity does not seem to be reliant on a particular situation, and is therefore a more robust state. Secondly, the Pyrrhonist investigates conflicting accounts extensively and builds
arguments for both positions leading to a suspension of judgement. This is done instead of holding on to any of two opposing beliefs, and remaining confused over which one is more convincing because of insufficient inquiry. Not knowing which side is correct, as both seem probable, and therefore staying in a state of confusion is not resolved by Sam, but it automatically leads to the suspension of
judgement for the Pyrrhonist. This shows that the Pyrrhonist in contrast to Sam has the ability to see
94 PH 1.206, 3.280. 95 Piko, 2002, 278.
the equipollence.96 Thirdly, we have seen the curative aspects of Pyrrhonism. It can cure the troubled
mind of dogmatic beliefs. Sextus made clear that those who hold beliefs are perpetually troubled.97 In contrast to Sam, the Pyrrhonist makes no determination about what is good or bad, and does not endlessly pursue either, and is therefore tranquil.98
The Sam examples have shown the contrast between a life grasped by belief and that of the Pyrrhonist. I hope to have shown that Pyrrhonism is appealing, at least for the human that is troubled by their beliefs, through my set of examples of the average individual in modern western society. Bett sees the content psychological state that Pyrrhonism advocates as the indication of an impoverished life.99 I disagree. While it may not present ultimate happiness, the Pyrrhonist is stable and liberated
from daily troubles, and it may well be more appealing than a state of euphoria with the occasional hysteria. The life of a Pyrrhonist in modern life is in conclusion one in tranquillity and free of a troubled mind.
There is additional reason to suspect that Pyrrhonism might have a positive influence on the troubled mind. There is currently a form of psychological therapy that is well applied throughout western society. Cognitive behavioural therapy is accepted as an effective tool in dealing with negative thoughts that impact one’s life and mental state. It is actually similar to the Pyrrhonian endeavour. It educates people in learning certain positive beliefs in contrast to their existing negative belief.100 Although the intervention is focused on adopting positive beliefs as true it cannot be denied that clients are still aware of their previous negative beliefs. The reason why many individuals fall back into their depression can be the result of regarding the negative beliefs as more true than the positive. It is unclear what would happen with the same population if they were encouraged to see not only their negative beliefs as ungrounded but also their positive beliefs. Because why would the positive beliefs have any more claim to truth than their negative beliefs? And it could be argued that the success of this therapy is solely based on acquiring the wisdom that the negative beliefs causing hopelessness and anxiety are not representative of the truth.
4. Appearance and action in modern daily life
4.1 The world of appearancesAppearances are those things that initially appear. They are not complex in their definition for they are just that which comes to us, either by the senses or in thought. Primacy of the appearances is what
96 Kuzminski, 2008, 5. 97 PH 1.27.
98 PH 1.28. 99 Bett, 2012, 21. 100 Hughes, 2014, 106.
makes Pyrrhonists different from the dogmatists. The appearances constitute their own reality,101
namely a reality consisting of appearance, which can be understood as the only true reality for a Pyrrhonist. The opposite seems true in dogmatist forms of philosophy. Dogmatists give primacy to specific aspects that decide how humans and nature should be understood,102 but the primacy of these aspects cannot be taken as certain for Sextus.103 Throughout the history of philosophy, reason has been
presented as that highest principle. Reason’s primacy is doubted by Sextus in his discussion of intellect. He mentions intellect as even more unclear than the soul.104 Nonetheless reason is
continuously used as that which explains human understanding and the external world.105 German Idealism fixates on the supremacy of reason. Hegel even saw reason as a sort of substance that makes up all of reality,106 thus making the empirical world one of rational substance. Rationality as the primary way to understanding humans is refuted by the Pyrrhonist. This is done in two ways. First by showing that subjects differ in the appearances they receive, and this shows how a general account of humanity in terms of its reason is a faulty effort.107 Secondly by showing how the lowliest of animals (a dog) can have claim on just as much rational behaviour when compared to humans.108 This means to show that going beyond the appearances in making a claim of primacy is uncertain, thus we should suspend our judgement on these matters.
There is an accessible example of an appearance in the Outlines of Sextus Empiricus that makes the difference between appearance and the uncertain clear. When a Pyrrhonist eats honey and it appears to be sweet, he does not go against that appearance.109 The question if it is sweet is a different matter, because then you enter the realm of belief, truth and knowledge. A Pyrrhonist would never claim that it did not appear sweet to him when he ate it.110 A Pyrrhonist assents to the appearance and the feeling that it causes in him. It is also important that the feeling accompanying an appearance is an appearance on its own.111 It cannot be assumed that the sensible appearance causes the appearance of a feeling. Sextus is sceptical of the existence of causes in general.112 The joy of sweetness is as such a
different appearance than the sweetness itself.
Assenting to appearance, but not to the uncertainty of its essence also involves the other senses. If it appears that the sun is out, this appearance is not refuted but is accepted for what it is. This does not mean that I should assume that the sun is actually there. I can only assume that it appears to be there for me. That I smell freshly baked bread does not give certainty that someone is baking bread, 101 Kuzminski, 2008, 75.
102 This is different for every school of course, but Sextus argues against a few of them. Examples being Democritus and his prim acy of the atoms (PH 2.24) and Epicurus his pointing to decide who is human (PH 2.25). But he does not limit his critique to these two.
103 PH 2.34. 104 PH 2.32.
105 O’Connor & Mohr, 2006, 5. 106 Hegel, 2006, 329. 107 PH 1.36. 108 PH 1.76. 109 PH 1.20. 110 PH 1.20. 111 Kuzminski, 2018, 74. 112 PH 3.29.
